I Told You

So you know how people are always crying about how dangerous football is? About how too many people get injured and that they almost die and that stuff is really serious and awful?

Bullshit.

By proportion, in America, a greater percentage of people die in horse racing than any other sport. Yup. 128 deaths per 100,000, which beats out skydiving (123), motorcycle racing (7), and the Pussy Sport boxing (1.3). So yeah, football's not dangerous at all. And that's logic. [Please, someone understand I'm being facetiously stupid, here?]

I need to say this next one because it speaks to all the dumb white people out there, because only dumb white people 'play' this sport. 180 people die a year, worldwide, due to sports fishing. Let me repeat.

180 people die a year due to sports fishing.

And, as we all know, only white people get into boats and run around a lake speed fishing. This is the highest number of deaths per sport per year. Dumb white people drink and fall over the boat, hit their head and drown. No joke. That's the given reason for the high death rate. That's the leading cause of death in the Official Dumb White Person Sport. Falling into a lake. And dying.

So take that football. Pssht. Pussy sport.

Read more...

Sports Related but Anyone Can Enjoy It! Yay!

I've been watching a healthy amount of tennis the last seven days, partly because I'm beginning to like tennis - a lot - and partly because the Australian Open (the first major of the tennis calendar) began seven days ago. In any case, other than getting better at recognizing all things tennis, the more complicated noodlings and what not, I'm admiring more and more the fans.

Tennis is unique among "Sports the American Public Cares About," which includes football, baseball, basketball, tennis, hockey and maybe a few others (that's the general order of popularity, too): it's an individual event, one in which, literally, the cream rises to the top. It's incredibly transparent, which is awesome and usually unheard of; the transparency, though, is mainly the result of 1) a lack of calls that require complicated officiating and 2) the ease at which competitors can review calls - any calls - they think went the wrong way. The fact that it's an individual sport and very transparent means the best people win the most often, an attribute that's highly attractive and addictive.

But here's what I like about the fans: they cheer, scream, hoot and holler whenever anything cool, awesome, incredible or inspiring happens, no matter who is the progenitor of such a moment. There are loyalties, to be sure, but even if you're in love with Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal, you'll make some noise if Andy Murray does something incredible. In your other mainstream sports, this is not likely to happen. The only time a fan will fawn over a non-team-player's action is if it's really ridiculous, like when Nate Robinson blocks Yao Ming (Nate is 5'8" in heels and Yao Ming is 7'6" straight up) or when Kobe or whoever hits a stupid turn around jumper with two seconds left on the clock and three guys in his face. But if, say, Kobe makes a similar shot in the second quarter or something, the average non-Lakers fan will usually snarl in disgust (because they hate Kobe and whenever Kobe does something awesome, they get angry [because it's a constant reminder of their deep desire to cheer for awesome talent and their inability to do so when it's someone they hate/isn't on their team]).

Of course, part of this disparity between tennis and football/basketball/baseball/et al is the reality that one is a team sport with teams holding camp in a specific geographic location (and geographic loyalty has a certain hold over people's inclinations) and the other is an individual sport in which athletes represent various countries, rather than specific geographic locations. When multiple athletes originate from the same location (in this case a whole country) it's harder to have loyalties. You're all at once loyal to the location (the country) but you can't possibly be loyal to all it's members, because they interact and play eacher and so on. It's like rooting for the Clippers and the Lakers; they're both from Los Angeles and they play each other all the time, the same division and conference, and so it's difficult to be loyal to both. It's a lot easier to be loyal to, say, the Lakers of LA and the Knicks of New York because they play each other rarely, if at all. It's easier to keep loyalties intact if they never come into conflict.

Since tennis operates on a different fidelital (is that a word?) level, it's easier to hoot and holler for different players and it's a lot harder to hold loyalties to a specific player. It's also difficult to sustain loyalties because players get old and retire after a while. And, unlike a team sport, you can't stay loyal to a franchise as it keeps replenishing players and coaches and staff and whatever. When a guy retires from tennis, you have to pick another guy, or another couple of guys. I imagine most tennis fans do something like this: they naturally root for one country, usually the one they're from, and then they latch on to individual players, even players from outside the country of loyalty.

Even so, people don't stay stock still or snarl in disgust when the guy whooping the ass of the guy they root for makes a sick play on the baseline; they bang their head, of course, in empathetic anger and frustration, but only after first marveling at the sick play on the baseline. When you watch tennis, the crowd will respond almost uniformly to each player. There's usually a difference, but it's only noticeable to a small degree, or to a degree that's irrelevant/doesn't matter/who cares. In fact, this unform hooting and hollering makes most matches feel more intense than the first or second round boredom it normally would feel like. In Big Team Sports, regular season games sometimes feel lackluster, for whatever reason, and others feel like playoff games, with the crowd going crazy and especially if the two teams are close together, where the fans split 50/50 in terms of representation. When one side does something the place erupts; if the other responds, the place erupts. That's how tennis feels all the time. It's great.

Tonight, Roger Federer, best player in the world, one of the greatest to the play tennis, was getting his ass kicked by some 6'5" Czech youngster, and the crowd was responding by cheering the Czech youngster. But everytime Federer started to claw his way back, they let him know they still cared about him, and that he was still awesome. If you were looking to discriminate between loyalties, you'd be confused. It doesn't matter, though, because the crowd was responding to good tennis, not regional/ethnic/whatever loyalties. Of course, when Federer got his shit together and won three straight sets to complete an incredible comeback, the crowd let him know that they enjoyed every minute, every grueling, "will he or won't he?" moment. But people cheered just as much for the effort that the Czech guy put up in order to make the great match possible.

I think what it amounts to is this: in tennis, people are there to 1) watch their favorite players and 2) enjoy the hell out of the sport. If two players play well and give a good match, people are going to let them know. And when it's not too eventful, people still whoop and jump because of regional/ethnic/whatever loyalties. It's win-win-win.

And, just for kicks, I should mention that not all fans of Big Team Sports react this way. Keith and I, for instance, marvel at any awesome basketball play, even if it is the result of, say, some Spurs player we loathe (which would be all Spurs players, come to think of it). This indiscriminate cheering makes things interesting when attending games, because people start to think I'm either a) a moron or b) epileptic. At a recent Suns/Hawks game, for example, some girls in front of us thought we were from Atlanta because I screamed, Braveheart-like, whenever Zaza Pachulia so much as touched the ball. "Paaaacchhhhuuuulliiiiaaaa!" would ring out across the stadium and people started staring. Confusion erupted, though, because I would yell every time Steve Nash ran up the court and shot a stupid, "this-isn't-real" three pointer. So, you know, there are exceptions to those ridiculous people who paint their skin red and white and attend Nebraska Cornhuskers games wearing nothing but shorts and giant corn on the cobs arm guards.

Read more...

Role Models and Bad Asses

Why is it that we see athletes as role models? And further, why is it that we feel justified penalizing them when they do not act accordingly?

The dominating view is that athletes are role models because they are in the national eye very prominently and children look up to them. Moreover, they should be penalized in their respective leagues for doing things not in keeping with this view. Our children look up to them and when they do “bad” things, it tells our children such an action is permissible.

So let’s examine what’s happening here. Child A looks at Person X, sees them do Action a, and decides that Action a is permissible because they look up to Person X. The child likes a person, an athlete in this case, and seems to logically deduce that whatever that person is doing must be alright for him to do, as well. And so, presumably, they do those things.

What about books? What about TV shows? There are characters involved that children could and do look up to, ones that also do things that we would consider “bad.” Should we then make our children avoid anything written by Dostoevsky? Avoid TV shows like House which has a character you love that’s an arrogant asshole? These mediums, and others, have characters whom our children look up to; and a number of these characters have qualities we would normally find deplorable and do things we would not want our children doing. So why not treat them in the same manner as athletes?

Now, some will argue that these are all fictitious entities and so they can’t be fairly described in the same way as athletes. But the return question should be: what’s the relevance? Fictitious or not, they are role models for our children.

And what about dead people whom we look up to and view as role models? Certainly Henry Ford is seen as a role model, but he was a tyrannical boss and hated Jews. Do we tell our children to hate him and not see him as anyone special or important?

No, of course not. The problem with all this is a misaligned desire to have our children pick role models who are perfect, in every way, and that’s not only impossible, but stupid. Yes, stupid. If everyone tried to have role models that were perfect they would be disregarding that part of life that isn’t perfect, an understanding of which is essential. (And don’t tell me you can just pick Jesus as a role model; if you think he’s perfect, blow me.) When children fail to recognize that life is shitty sometimes, they fail to live in the same reality as everyone. They fail to see what it means to be human, what it means to live and die in this world. And thus they fail to live correctly.

We should tell our children to respect and admire the good qualities in all people while deploring the bad ones. So Henry Ford's ingenuity and business sense should be admired, while his ethics and Jew-hating should be despised. Or Einstein's genius, and not his penchant for adultery. Or George Bush's...wait, that doesn't work.

Anyways, I want my child to look up to Terrell Owens. Yeah, he’s an arrogant dickhead, but he’s also fucking amazing. He’s one of the best athletes in the world, he’s an incredible wide receiver, and he’s a better basketball player than half the NBA. So if my kid comes home and puts his poster on the wall, good. I’ll make sure he recognizes the arrogant dickhead part, and that’s that.

So let’s stop penalizing these guys for doing stupid shit off the field. If the guy gets caught with an ounce, so what? He gets arrested, pays the fine, does his shit for society, and that’s enough. The NFL shouldn’t feel the need to further exact justice on the guy. And they shouldn't be worried about how others view their league, either, because no one actually cares if they're all criminals, as long as Sunday is still entertaining. Can you imagine a parent saying "Timmy, you can't watch football because only criminals play"? And parents shouldn’t get all pissy about someone being a “poor role model.” If you do, shut up, you’re dumb. Teach your kid how to differentiate between right and wrong.

Read more...

The Wild World of Fanhood

In the sports world, you are only allowed to have to one favorite team per sport. You can only cheer for one team per sport, unless you are rooting for a team that beat your team in that sport. Also, it is preferred, but exceptions are grudgingly allowed, that your favorite teams in each sport be located in the same state/region (preferably state). Finally, it is mandatory to hate in a very extreme, almost comical way, the legendary/current rival(s) of your favorite teams, in their respective sports. If a hated rival is located in the same state as your favorite team in a different sport, then you have to forfeit one of the two teams, in one of the sports – and immediately adopt a new team with compatible rivalries.

Now, I can see why this is the standard operating procedure. Intense sports loyalties are, to be honest, very fun. Going to a game and being able to instantly relate with thousands of other people who are thinking the same things you are is an incredible experience. If you don’t like sports, pick one and get to it; it is something you will not find anywhere else. Trust me, I spent the first 18 years of my life hating sports (or at least remaining ignorant of them). Now I love them, and for good reason. And intense sports loyalties are more easily grounded, and observable, if a person only likes one team per sport. If you like more than one team in a particular state, the loyalty will be even more intense, and more recognizable (and appreciated, probably) by other loyalists. So the above rules make sense, initially.

But then I wonder about sports writers, broadcasters, analysts, and so on: these guys do what I wish I could get away with around my friends (without being ridiculed) – they watch everyone, love everyone, but still, somehow, against all odds, retain their intense loyalties. Why can I not get away with that?

Let us break it down. For whatever reasons, I am a loyal fan of the Dallas Cowboys, the Los Angeles Lakers, and the Arizona Diamondbacks.

I became a Dallas fan in 1996 (though I didn’t start following them consistently until a couple of years ago) during the Super Bowl when I was eight years old. The whole family had gathered to watch it (almost no one actually liked football; it was just an excuse to get together and eat homemade ice cream) and everyone in the room, including the children (me excluded) was cheering against the Dallas Cowboys, but not necessarily for the Pittsburgh Steelers. So, naturally, being a stupid kid who wanted to stand out, I started rooting heavily (as much as an eight year old can muster) for the ‘Boys, America’s Team. Thus was born my lifelong fanhood.

I became a Lakers fan because of one reason, which eventually led to thousands of other reasons: Kobe Bryant. I absolutely cannot get enough of this guy. I followed him a lot when I was younger, but never got into basketball. I was really fascinated, and still am, with his dominating mindset and his brain process that tells him he is always going to win. Now, that is an overly used phrase, but most times, it is misapplied; almost no one can match Kobe in this area, which is why it is aptly attributed to him. So, eventually, I fell in love with basketball, and now my school work suffers six months out of the year. People say I am a bandwagon fan, but I actually started following Lakers basketball during the two seasons they were awful, not too long ago. So, yeah, eat that, smelly pants.

And I became Diamondbacks fan because, well, I like the guys, what can I say. It would have been much easier to transfer into the Red Sox Nation because my dad was born and raised in Massachussetts and my brother has adopted his Sox loyalty, but I didn’t. I’m not really sure why; I just like the D-backs.

Now, with these loyalties I break all sorts of rules, all over the place. I’m surprised some committee hasn’t called me to testify on my own behalf before they blacklist me from nba.com forever or something. I mean, first, I live in Arizona. Both the Lakers and the Cowboys have rivalries here – the Lakers against the Suns who are in their division and the Cowboys against the Cardinals which is a huge game every year (mainly because there are as many Cowboys fans as Cardinals fans here). Also, the D-backs have division rivals in California, the home of the Lakers: the LOS ANGELES Dodgers and the San Franscisco Giants. So things are pretty much ugly on this front.

So how do we reconcile it? Well, honestly, we don’t. But I have to say that what drove my fanhood, initially, is not regional loyalty or some sense of patriotism for my city or something, but rather, my interest in players. I was driven to the Lakers by Kobe, I was partially driven to the D-backs because of Brandon Webb, and I was helped along, over the years, towards full-fledged Cowboys Fan status because of people like Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, Terrell Owens, and Deon Sanders. And, while we’re at it, I have a billion players in every sport whom I take a great deal of interest in, and thus, I enjoy when their teams win (unless it’s against one of my Fav Five Minus Three). And so, my Celtic sports gear a little bit ago, while simultaneously holding a very strong loyalty to the Lakers, was seen as heresy. I liked Boston because I like Garnett and Allen. When I realized how big of a douche Garnett could be, my loyalty to the two players slipped, and the shirt and hat haven’t been seen in public in quite some time.

But that’s what should happen. Or, at the least, should be allowable. As long as I keep my original loyalties, and never waiver, what’s the big deal if I root for other teams (conflict-free, that is)? I wanted the Hawks, desperately, to beat the Celtics in the playoffs last year, and why? Because Josh Smith made me want to shit my pants every time I saw him play. And I wanted Phoenix to beat Dallas because the more I get to watch Amare and Steve Nash, the better I feel. But in the end, if the Lakers don’t win, I’m pissed (and I was; ask Keith – we didn’t talk basketball for three weeks).

So let’s not let intense fan loyalties blind us to the merits alternative forms of sports worshipping. They are all acceptable, and should be allowable publicly, and not just in private. (I know every guy on ESPN is like this. And what about coaches? Do they ever ditch their childhood loyalties, even if they coach for some other team? I’m sure they do.)

And some predictions, why not. Lakers win the championship if they stay healthy, and Kobe wins second MVP even if the team doesn't stay healthy. Diamondbacks due worse next season than they did this season because they failed to engineer a system in which they are able to keep all their good players. And the Cowboys are a mess, but I’ll give them a 70% chance of reaching the playoffs once Romo comes back, assuming they don’t lose three straight or something (which scares me).

Read more...

To My Favorite Philly Brothers - This One's For You

This is NOT a Rickroll

So two of my friends are Philly guys; they're not from Philly, but went to UPenn, so they automatically have Philly blood. They're not necessarily loyal to Philly teams, but as semi-blooded Philadelphians, they must, at any opportunity, knock Boston fans. It's pretty much a blood ritual I think the three big cities play out - Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. These three cities are chock full of sports guys who hock venum at each other, all for fun. But I must admit, it is pretty fun. So my two Philly bros give my real bro shit for being a Boston fan. Well, here's some help for my bro to get back. Of course, I'm not sure if Philly fans would be ashamed or proud of this. Hmmm.

A guy at Deadspin asked for readers to give him stories of Philly fans being, well, um, Philly fans. What he got was a deluge of stories about the most awful, wretched, immoral people who ever lived. But I gotta, say, it's freakin' hilarious. I only now wish the same guy would ask for similar stories about Boston and New York.

Read more...

Tonight's Epic-ness

So I went to Jon's to watch the Red Sox game and the Suns/Nuggets "outdoor" game. Tfunk was there, and the three of us did what all trios of men do on Saturday nights: sit around and watch sports. Bleh... The Red Sox lost in the bottom of the eleventh inning; the game went over five hours. The Suns lost to the Nuggets and it was awful.

The Suns starting five looked terrible. I realize Diaw was in for Stoudemire, but still, those six guys should be able to run the floor pretty well and do the things they did last year. Somehow, though, the Nuggets bench beat them up. They looked like a group of players who had never played together before. I suppose the problem is really that Terry Porter instituted a new style of offense, and it's taking time to work it out, but still, five good ball players vs. Nuggets bench: I wanna see some production, here. The good news is that their poor play is helping vindicate my prediction that the Suns aren't going to make the playoffs. I WANT them to make the playoffs, but I'm skerrred. We'll know, I think, after the first 35 games or so, whether or not the Suns will be in the top 8 in the West; after that chunk of games, it should be obvious. But who knows. Maybe I'm horribly wrong. I hope.

In other news, the Lakers look so-so in preseason. If they can figure out just what to do with Bynum, Odom, Gasol, Kobe, Fisher, Farmer, Vujabitch, Vlad the Rad, Ariza, and Walton (that's a lot of talent), they should win the West again and make it the finals, where, hopefully, they win. But we'll see. Injuries might kill us (Gasol, Bynum, Odom, Kobe, Fisher, Walton...they all are prone to injuries. At least Kobe can play through his.)

Read more...